NICE slap for state
NICE slap for state
Vijay Times
In a major setback to the State government, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition seeking a review of its earlier order which gave the green signal for the formation of the Rs 4,000 crore Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project.
A Bench comprising Justices K G Balakrishnan, S B Sinha and Dalver Bhandari which began its hearing around 1.30 pm, gave the order around 1.45 pm after holding that the review petition was not maintainable. The judges took up the petition in their chambers and not in the open court. The judges observed that all aspects had been considered by the three-judge Bench in its verdict delivered on April 20, 2006.
The State government had preferred a review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution against the verdict which had allowed Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise (NICE) to take up the project.
The apex court had earlier directed the State government to implement in letter and spirit the framework agreement it had entered into with NICE.
Once bitten, thrice bitten
Lessons from a famous defeat
Courts of law are generally approached to seek justice. Some are also approached to ‘fix’ the other party, given the time the overburdened judiciary takes to dispose of cases. The H Kumaraswamy government’s obsession with “setting right the wrong” in the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) project squarely fa in the latter category, given the successive drubb it has been receiving in the courts. Either government has no case—or it does not know how to fight it. Either way it is becoming, if it hasn’t become, the laughing stock across the nation spending public money and getting in return tonnes of stick. The latest reverse is the rejecti Thursday of its petition seeking a review o Supreme Court judgment dismissing its appeal against the Karnataka High Court ruling in favour Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise.
The State government’s contention was that the three-judge SC Bench had failed to consider argument that 2,400 acres of land was granted by t previous government in excess of the area needed f the project. The SC found no validity in t contention and turned down the government’s plea to reconsider its judgment. Clearly, the Kum swamy government had not done its homework effectively, even after being pulled up in instance for being frivolous.
Two options now exist before the Kumaraswamy regime. Either it can bury its head in the sand fu and pursue other, more tortuous legal options whil slapping its thighs in the political theatre. Or i learn a lesson and pave the way for the p which could yet turn out to be the best signal the government can send that its opposition is driven by the personal agendas of individual politicians and bureaucrats affected by the projec There may be plenty wrong with the project. But these ought to have been discovered and ironed out before signing on the dotted line. By going to the courts out of pique and losing its case not once o twice but thrice, the government has only exposed the hollowness of its case, fought from the should of unseen farmers. The Kumaraswamy government has failed to marshall facts and figures to back u view or version of the BMIC project. In the proces has lost the land forever, its face in the Court twice, and public money thrice.
M P Prakash
Law Minister
It’s a disgrace. The prestige of the State has been brought down by this government due to its vindictive politics I had earlier advised the government not to file a review petition before the court as it was against the Supreme Court verdict I will discuss the issue with the Law department and others and take an appropriate decision Govt appealed according to Article 32; hence the appeal can’t be treated as null and void under the Article I have directed the Law Secretary to obtain a copy of the order. After due discussion, appropriate action will be taken
R V Deshpande,
former Minister
The State government will exercise the option of filing a curative petition to challenge the dismissal of its review petition by the Supreme Court in the BMIC case.
A curative petition is the final legal step for any aggrieved party to seek relief in court. This legal remedy came into force only in 2002 when a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court gave this option to a person who is aggrieved by a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court, after a petition for ‘review’ of the same is dismissed.
The State can seek to establish violation of principles of natural justice and that the judgment adversely affected its interest. The State could also allege bias.
Sources said that in case the curative petition also failed, a legislation proposing a complete takeover of the BMIC project was not ruled out. The legislation would follow since the State would not want to hand over to NICE the excess land.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home